To go to a gig where the lead singer is rumoured to have sexually assaulted young women?

[Whatyagonnadokatie]

So, Ive been very excited to finally see one of my favourite bands live. But... there are very credible rumours on the internet that the lead singer has sexually assaulted young women.

wibu to still go?

Yep, sleazy as fuck. I'm not saying he's behaved well but that's very different to condemning someone, anyone, for a crime before they've even been tried and convicted. Yes, a lot of men have behaved very, very badly. However so have quite a lot of women. I cannot get on board with trial by social media. Has no-one read 'To Kill a Mockingbird'?

That’s alright, if you hide it then it will disappear off your “threads I’m on” and won’t appear on active

Also, if you attach the pitchfork article, you will see him and his wife's statement. She is standing by him. Whether that is to safeguard band tour and profit, protect her son, open marriage or better understanding/forgiveness, fuck knows.

I have no issue with it being discussed, I don't object to the existence of the thread at all. I'm just surprised at the almost universal condemnation of a man who is, at this point, innocent.

pitchfork.com/news/arcade-fires-win-butler-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-by-multiple-women-frontman-responds/

Read the article. By his own admission, his behaviour is piss-poor.

"Jesus, so much for innocent until proven guilty! I'm finding this thread pretty horrific actually. I hope none of you lot ever get called for jury duty."

For me he burden of proof for "should I go to the gig" would be different to " should I vote guilty or not guilty in court" .

Age gap and power imbalance.

This is an odd phrase when talking about grown adults where one hasnt been a teacher or professional working with the younger person.

That would imply that any relationship between a person who is older and who has more money/power/status than the other person is questionable. I dont think I believe that

Here is my reaction at the time. 48 hours later, I haven't changed my mind.

Oof. That Pitchfork article is damning (good journalism though) and Win's reactions are a bloody cliche. He allegedly treated the four women as disposable/acted as a sex pest. He then maligns them as groupies/crazy.
Add that to that the usual heal myself/I can be better mantra. It's lile a goddamn bingo card.
Failing to see an age gap as problematic and not understanding that manipulating those who look up to you is exploitative...not buying it. Then mentioning his wife's miscarriage for context. Spare me.

I mean - innocent until proven guilty is arguably our most important legal principle, so I think it’s OK to go, but I probably wouldn’t go because I’d struggle to enjoy it

I’m sure that plenty of bands I do go and see have had a similar history and some of them will get pulled up and most won’t

"The three women said their relationships with the singer were inappropriate due to an age gap and unbalanced power dynamics."

What a load of nothing.

I think the power imbalance is the fact that these girls "I checked she was 18 on google" were in hero worship of him.
I know legally he is in the clear, but for me (my DD is now 20) eighteen is still so young. Although an adult - a fan of a much older male means the fan is in a vulnerable position and the older singer is exploiting the situation.
Music has not had its metoo moment really, because of the whole groupie victim-blaming. When there are too many examples of predatory behaviour to count.

After reading the allegations, I’d go.

These four were all adult women fans aged 18 to 23 that contacted him first when he was in his late 30s at the time. 3 of the 4 it was never more than sexting. 1 claims he grabbed her crotch and later on forcibly kissed her- he says it was consensual.

They’re not women who worked for him. They weren’t underage. There was no sexual activity beyond a kiss with one of them- alleged to have happened in 2015.

Katie Perry kissed a contestant on American Idol without his consent…that was sexual misconduct filmed, witnessed- no doubt it happened- in 2018. Her career is a-ok.

So, I’d go to see the band.

Exactly this! So much 'have you not read To Kill A Mockingbird' style comments. We aren't being asked if we'd convict him, we're being asked if the OP should go to the concert or not. A tad different! Noone knows if he's guilty or not but that isn't the question.

OP, watch a song on YouTube and see how you feel. If you feel weird don't go. You won't enjoy it. I personally wouldn't go, not because I've given a 'social media trial by fire', but because the very fact I wouldn't know the truth of the allegation would just mean I'd just not enjoy the concert at all. The possibility would ruin it for me but that's not me making a judgement on guilt. I could always go on a later date if the artist is proven innocent. Maybe the OP feels the same.

I agree. Could just as easily say

”The three women said their relationships with the Prime Minister were inappropriate due to an age gap and unbalanced power dynamics.”

And they all have his love children…a lot more than a grope and a kiss!

A sixteen year age gap is not a lot the older you get...but at 18, a 34 year old should know better. I agree that that comes down to a personal, moral code but the band portray themselves as ethically sound. The hypocrisy is what rankles between public image and private choices made.
Tale as old as time.

@SequinsandStilettos yeah I actually think this is an example of a ‘trial by social media’ being very appropriate. He’s admitted to being a gross, sleazy man with a morally dubious attitude to sex with younger women. This is now in the public domain and he has to deal with the consequences. I think it’s a good example of journalism making information available to people
and probing what we do and don’t consider acceptable behaviour around sexual relationships. It’s also giving a voice to women who have been treated horribly by someone.

The possibility would ruin it for me but that's not me making a judgement on guilt.

It is. And that's where we differ then as I see quite a lot of people on this thread making a judgement on guilt.

People have flings and affairs all the time. Often they mean very little. Someone sometimes is left feeling hurt, its the way of human interaction at times.

I dont agree its 'dubious or questionable' apart from the fact that he has a partner (a no go as far as Im concerned) but then that was the womens choice as well

All true. But being sleazy is not a crime.

I wouldn't miss a good gig because the singer was disreputable, unless he was disreputable with me. Or unless he wasn't, depending on how I felt about him.

Aside, I'm currently watching documentaries about Free and Bad Company. Paul Rodgers is so hot. Did anyone shag him at the time, and was he any good?

Just curious.

I didn't notice him at the time. I was overwhelmed by Paul Kossoff's musicianship.

I also think the Pitchfork article shows the behaviours more clearly.
As I said, I like the music - but the lyrics would sit with me more uncomfortably now.
Not related...
I have a favourite band - last time I saw them, the lead singer seemed a bit out of it and also quite cross at the crowd - I still haven't worked out why I found that so upsetting (possibly because I drove so many miles and moved heaven and earth to attend) but I haven't bought tickets for the next gig.
So...
It comes down OP as to whether these allegations/revelations give you the ick or not, such that you won't actually enjoy the gig. If it taints the experience, I wouldn't go.
If you want to see them for the first time/last time, then go...the atmosphere will be electric, the band are great live from what I know, and you can always leave.

I'd struggle with this. I wondered if it would be good to go as saw the support was Fiest. I was about to ask my older teen if she'd want to go (realise it's probably sold out anyway) and then this story broke. If I'd been a mega fan and already had the tickets - urgh, what a horrible dilemma. I wouldn't be able to just think "Oh, they're all the same" while watching.

Legally innocent and factually innocent are not the same.

Legally innocent merely means the state cannot impose punishment. It doesn't mean someone is factually innocent or that people are obliged to pretend so.